News: Warner Brothers Chat Session

It would be a deam come true if we got a three disk special edition;

original film restored
rehersal footage
full concert plus best of other concert footage.

All with DD/DTS 5.1 soundtrack and a dual release in HD or Blueray with new HD sound quality.

Alas, I suspect we will get the original film digitally remastered with a DD 5.1 soundtrack which will be average if TTWII is anything to go by. Anything more than this will indeed be a bonus.

What frustrates me is what earthly reason is there for not releasing the footage they have. If they are not going to use it why not sell it to EPE or BMG at a reasonable price? Just give it to someone who will use it. It seems a crime to have so much available footage for one of the biggest icon's from the 20/21st century and simply let it rot away.

Still looking on the positive side - fingers crossed for some great news shortly from Warners.

cheers Jamie

I suspect we will get the original film digitally remastered with a DD 5.1 soundtrack which will be average if TTWII is anything to go by

I suspect that there will be no TTWII release at all anytime soon.

what earthly reason is there for not releasing the footage they have.

err.....did you read any of my earlier posts? The cost of production (restoration/editing/marketing etc) is judged to be greater than the predicted profit from sales.

Chris

These "wish lists" are harmless enough and indeed, I would buy all of the DVDs you describe above. However, the reality is that there is no longer a large enough market for productions like this. It should be remembered that it is very expensive to work with the original film elements of 30-40 year old movies. It hasn't been done for an Elvis movie since 2000 and I am afraid that interest has literally died off considerabley since then.

There *is* enough of a market -- WAAAAAY much of one.

It's Elvis Presley.

The poor sales of TTWII are more a reflection of its marketing / the finished product. I think the powers that be (or some of them, at least) realise that now.

As far as TTWII goes: while they might have to clean up additional footage, we know that they cleaned up more than what found its way to DVD. Half the job is done. I am positive that we haven't seen the last of TTWII.

if warner releases t.t.w.i.s and on tour in delux editions like the 68 and aloha sets from epe im sure warner would be very happy with there return as we would all buy them everybody knows that the mistake they made with the 2000 remake was showing it on tv before releasing it on dvd not nocking the special edition i like it but it could have and should have been better .

jess wade

if warner releases t.t.w.i.s and on tour in delux editions ... im sure warner would be very happy with there return as we would all buy them
jess wade

If by "we" you mean the active members of this MB, that would account for about 50 copies. I think you need to understand that "we" do not reflect the mass market needed to make these productions profitable.

Chris

Hello,

I'm surprised no one has asked when exactly how soon will this information be announced pertaining Warner Brothers and possible DVD releases. I would be very surprised if it wasn't announced the week of the estate's Graceland purchase on about March 23-24. That to me would be the ideal time to make such an announcement. It wouldn't surprise me if Sony/BMG laid their plans out around the same time for celebrating the 30th.

Daryl

These "wish lists" are harmless enough and indeed, I would buy all of the DVDs you describe above. However, the reality is that there is no longer a large enough market for productions like this. It should be remembered that it is very expensive to work with the original film elements of 30-40 year old movies. It hasn't been done for an Elvis movie since 2000 and I am afraid that interest has literally died off considerabley since then.

There *is* enough of a market -- WAAAAAY much of one.

It's Elvis Presley.

The poor sales of TTWII are more a reflection of its marketing / the finished product. I think the powers that be (or some of them, at least) realise that now.

As far as TTWII goes: while they might have to clean up additional footage, we know that they cleaned up more than what found its way to DVD. Half the job is done. I am positive that we haven't seen the last of TTWII.

Lets throw the sales figures out the window for TTWII-SE, we know why that flopped. Christ, I didn't even know what DVD's were back then, now I own a ton of them, as does everybody I know.

I'm surprised no one has asked when exactly how soon will this information be announced pertaining Warner Brothers and possible DVD releases.

WB tend to announce releases 2-3 months in advance, so I wouldn't expect to hear anything before late April or early May for a July/August release.

Chris

I'm surprised no one has asked when exactly how soon will this information be announced pertaining Warner Brothers and possible DVD releases.

WB tend to announce releases 2-3 months in advance, so I wouldn't expect to hear anything before late April or early May for a July/August release.

Chris

Without checking I thought they said an announcement in a few weeks. And one week must be up by now???

These "wish lists" are harmless enough and indeed, I would buy all of the DVDs you describe above. However, the reality is that there is no longer a large enough market for productions like this. It should be remembered that it is very expensive to work with the original film elements of 30-40 year old movies. It hasn't been done for an Elvis movie since 2000 and I am afraid that interest has literally died off considerabley since then.

There *is* enough of a market -- WAAAAAY much of one.

It's Elvis Presley.

The poor sales of TTWII are more a reflection of its marketing / the finished product. I think the powers that be (or some of them, at least) realise that now.

As far as TTWII goes: while they might have to clean up additional footage, we know that they cleaned up more than what found its way to DVD. Half the job is done. I am positive that we haven't seen the last of TTWII.

Lets throw the sales figures out the window for TTWII-SE, we know why that flopped. Christ, I didn't even know what DVD's were back then, now I own a ton of them, as does everybody I know.

The SE DVD did really well in the UK even getting a limited cinema run which wasn't well attended when I went because it had no publicity and I mean none! But it sure was good watching it on the big screen! When the DVD came out it sold 100,000+ and still makes the odd appearance in the Official Music DVD Chart.

The SE DVD did really well in the UK even getting a limited cinema run which wasn't well attended when I went because it had no publicity and I mean none!

Well, apart from the 1.3 million promo CD-ROMs in the Sunday Times (the UK's biggest selling Sunday newspaper). You know, the one with "Currently in cinemas nationwide" written on the cover. The Sunday Times magazine that week had Elvis on the cover of the free magazine and a two-page feature inside. There was also a promo CD in the Sunday Telegraph that included a TTWII screensaver, but that only reached a half million people. Oh, and the clip of "Suspicious Minds" that played incessantly on VH-1. And the local radio competitions to win cinema tickets for the movie. And the special IMAX screenings. And the feature on Breakfast TV. Oh yeah, and the full page ads in the music press. And........



Chris

I don't see the point in releasing TIE in more than one version. The extended version would be just fine with me.

I don't agree at all. The extended version was, in part, produced for broadcast on NBC, so it was hastily put together, complete with bad editing, song deletions, and some of the worst ADR I've ever heard.."man, she could raise the dead".

The difference with those releases is that the source material was video tape which is cheaper to restore/edit than film. Hence, fewer sales were needed to break even.

Actually, that's incorrect. The cost difference in working with video vs. film is minimal at best. Besides, everything today is edited digitally so there is no cost differential at all. Finally, the overall financial obligation to a studio for the production, marketing and release of a single DVD title has absolutely nothing to do with the format of the source material. So, to say that fewer sales were needed to break even is not even remotely accurate.

Tom

The cost difference in working with video vs. film is minimal at best. Besides, everything today is edited digitally so there is no cost differential at all.

Obviously, but both formats need to be converted to digital first.

Video tape can be converted to digital by simply capturing the analogue playback signal with a computer graphics card.

Film involves the use of an optical device such as fly-spot scanner (FSS) or CCD. The more severe degradation of film over time compared video tape causes additional problems with the telecine process and greater post capture processing effort.

Of course, both film and video transfers can be done relatively cheaply, but the results would be unacceptable for commercial DVD. A quality transfer from old film stock is more expensive than video of a comparative age. Most film transfers today are also done in HD for future-proofing and this adds yet more cost, but it is not applicable to video.

Chris

Personally I think they should forget about the origianl movies and release something new like a ELVIS IN VEGAS 1970 and ELVIS ON TOUR 1972. I really don't care that much about the original movies. While I love the performaces the original movies kind of suck. ELVIS ON TOUR is terrible the filmmakes seem to have no interest in Elvis at all. They could release them seprately but I want something different. No Dayton elevator guy, please!

Personally I think they should forget about the origianl movies and release something new like a ELVIS IN VEGAS 1970 and ELVIS ON TOUR 1972. I really don't care that much about the original movies. While I love the performaces the original movies kind of suck.

Of course they do.

And I bet "Star Wars", "The Godfather" and "Citizen Kane" suck, too?

(Note to the rest of you: I'm not directly equating either "That's The Way It Is" or "Elvis On Tour" with those classic movies; I'm just countering extreme ignorance)

sorry, wrong topic...

Last edited by Rockin_John on Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I am not faulting Elvis performaces in any way just the movie themselfs. THATS THE WAY IT IS has too many interviews, and spends too much time on the hotel. There was just too much material to put in a less than two hour film. ON TOUR is even worst. How many close ups of back up singers do we need? I think the filmmakes were more interested in the Sweet Imperations than Elvis. The movie sould have been title Sweet INSPERATIONS ON TOUR withCo starring Elvis Presley. Both movies are very badly made. Elvis was great though. I have both versions on TTWII on dvd, without new material there isn't really any reason for me to buy it again. And ON TOUR needs to be redone, probably more than THATS THE WAY IT IS.






elvis

I am not faulting Elvis performaces in any way just the movie themselfs. THATS THE WAY IT IS has too many interviews, and spends too much time on the hotel. There was just too much material to put in a less than two hour film. ON TOUR is even worst. How many close ups of back up singers do we need? I think the filmmakes were more interested in the Sweet Imperations than Elvis. The movie sould have been title Sweet INSPERATIONS ON TOUR withCo starring Elvis Presley. Both movies are very badly made. Elvis was great though. I have both versions on TTWII on dvd, without new material there isn't really any reason for me to buy it again. And ON TOUR needs to be redone, probably more than THATS THE WAY IT IS.

Disagree.

They're both tremendously evocative pieces of art / entertainment. The focus on these external elements, intimately tied to the internal, is what gives those films an added resonance and power. While certain shots and moments might be excessive, the overall approach was correct, IMO. We were seeing Elvis Presley and everything associated with him. In EOT interview footage, the filmmakers even said to Elvis himself that they were trying to capture the energy and banter between he and his musicians. These things are full-bodied audio-visual documents of Elvis Presley concerts -- not just Elvis himself.

I agree, the film makers were trying to accomplish a goal. They could have just filmed Elvis's show several times and called it a day. But they wanted more than just the show. That would have been too easy. But now, looking back and Elvis is gone, I can see the point where all we want is Elvis and no interviews with the people that were there and had some first hand observations.

Elvis on Tour should be the original film as made, plus a full concert of one of the shows. And at some other point, they could release another one of the shows by itself.

Elvis On Tour is, indeed, a great documentary - hence why it won the Golden Globe. Not only do we see some great Presley performances, it gives us the warts and all side of a being an artist of that stature - the less glamorous side of being forced to enter buildings through back doors, of not being able to get to a car for fear of being ripped to shreds by fans, the obsessive fans who talk about Elvis in a really hysterical way. In many ways parts of the film are actually frightening and it gives the sense of claustrophia that Elvis must have felt at not being able to move freely, despite the fact that the world should have been his oyster.

We also see a change in Elvis. On TTWII he is seen to be having lots of fun, he seems to be much more workmanlike here. He isn't shown through rose-tinted glasses, he doesn't look like an adonis as he did two years before. In some shots he looks awful but it doesn't matter. This is the most honest portrait we have of Elvis as an artist in the 70s on film and possibly the only time we actually get to see who he really is - such as those quiet moments in the car, when he just stares out of the window. A moving film that I hope doesn't get messed about with on DVD. It's fine just as it is, thank you.

Brilliant thoughts (especially those bolded).

You are a credit to this board, shane.

Elvis On Tour is, indeed, a great documentary - hence why it won the Golden Globe. Not only do we see some great Presley performances, it gives us the warts and all side of a being an artist of that stature - the less glamorous side of being forced to enter buildings through back doors, of not being able to get to a car for fear of being ripped to shreds by fans, the obsessive fans who talk about Elvis in a really hysterical way. In many ways parts of the film are actually frightening and it gives the sense of claustrophia that Elvis must have felt at not being able to move freely, despite the fact that the world should have been his oyster.

We also see a change in Elvis. On TTWII he is seen to be having lots of fun, he seems to be much more workmanlike here. He isn't shown through rose-tinted glasses, he doesn't look like an adonis as he did two years before. In some shots he looks awful but it doesn't matter. This is the most honest portrait we have of Elvis as an artist in the 70s on film and possibly the only time we actually get to see who he really is - such as those quiet moments in the car, when he just stares out of the window. A moving film that I hope doesn't get messed about with on DVD. It's fine just as it is, thank you.

Well said Shane!

ON TOUR is even worst. How many close ups of back up singers do we need? I think the filmmakes were more interested in the Sweet Imperations than Elvis. The movie sould have been title Sweet INSPERATIONS ON TOUR withCo starring Elvis Presley. Both movies are very badly made.

You're kidding, right?

So if On Tour had been filmed with just one camera, aimed at Elvis 100% of the time, you think it would have been a better film? If I see a concert documentary, I want to see the band, the backing vocalists, what the building looked like, etc. Personally, I think the Sweet Inspirations are very nice to look at... especially Myrna... but that's another topic. And personally, I couldn't imagine the film without the scene where The Stamps sing Sweet Sweet Spirit... On Tour has an almost fly-on-the-wall feeling to it, its not too polished, I like that. I'm just so tired of my worn-out VHS copy of it, I want a pristine DVD SE now, or at least soon!

ON TOUR is even worst. How many close ups of back up singers do we need? I think the filmmakes were more interested in the Sweet Imperations than Elvis. The movie sould have been title Sweet INSPERATIONS ON TOUR withCo starring Elvis Presley. Both movies are very badly made.

You're kidding, right?

So if On Tour had been filmed with just one camera, aimed at Elvis 100% of the time, you think it would have been a better film? If I see a concert documentary, I want to see the band, the backing vocalists, what the building looked like, etc. Personally, I think the Sweet Inspirations are very nice to look at... especially Myrna... but that's another topic. And personally, I couldn't imagine the film without the scene where The Stamps sing Sweet Sweet Spirit... On Tour has an almost fly-on-the-wall feeling to it, its not too polished, I like that. I'm just so tired of my worn-out VHS copy of it, I want a pristine DVD SE now, or at least soon!

Well said. I like the fact that it shows Elvis battling the road, and what it can do to you, (sometimes he looks like he didn't even shave) the moment in the car where he's staring off into outer-space, is a classic.

Personally, I think the Sweet Inspirations are very nice to look at... especially Myrna... but that's another topic.

With ya. 100%. Gorgeous woman.

There is not even a Suspious Minds on ON TOUR. It is only 90 minute movie and is a very crowed film. It starts at Hampton Roads and ends with Hampton roads. Excuse me if I go to see a movie about ELVIS ON TOUR, I expect to see ELVIS on tour.